Mars Art thread

[Anonymous No.11606926]

Mars Art thread
Post Pictures of Mars

[Anonymous No.11606928]

[Anonymous No.11606943]

[Anonymous No.11606995]

Regardless of what you think it's status ought to be, it's the prettiest

[Anonymous No.11607032]

[Anonymous No.11607035]

[Anonymous No.11607039]

[Anonymous No.11607042]

[Anonymous No.11607043]

[Anonymous No.11607061]

Are there any examples of mars or space poverty? As in, living in space with the BARE MINIMUM required for survival. I think of the awkward tinfoil-like return stage of the Apollo landers. I want to know what's the lowest you can go and still survive in mars (because I want to be a solitary mars hermit, mostly)

[Anonymous No.11607131]

>>11606995
What is that from?

[Anonymous No.11608544]

>>11606928
Thanks to corona training, this looks comfy.

>>11606943
Nice landscape.

>>11607131
Pluto.

[Anonymous No.11608582]

This stuff is on the same level as the Jetsons. Cartoon fantasy. Just ask your self one question. What is the point of putting humans on mars when you can do everything at the tiny fraction of the cost with robots? Robot avatars yes. Humans no.

This whole delusion is sparked by the fact that there is virtually no where left on Earth to explore or colonize.

[Anonymous No.11608609]

>>11606928
Why didnt hollywood NASA send a second HAB with Mark Watley and friends for growing food and as a back-up?

Sure it would have been a different movie but that would have made more sense I think.

[Anonymous No.11608873]

>>11608582
You forget human nature. It is in our nature to go out, explore, discover, wander around and more. Not all of us are couch potatoes.

>>11608609
The stay was meant to be short and a second mission was sent out as soon as possible, for getting him back, not for turning him into a permanent farmer.

[Anonymous No.11608972]

>>11606995
Imagine sending lander there.
I don't give a shit if it's even more basic than Viking was on Mars. We should do it.

[Anonymous No.11608978]

>>11608582
>What is the point of putting humans on mars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIU3HrCCT2k

[Anonymous No.11609008]

>>11608972
The problem is there are a lot of really promising places that are begging to be explored and only a finite budget and resources to accomplish. Not to mention its really fucking far away.
Places like Enceladus and Europa are the next big places to explore.

[Anonymous No.11609032]

>>11609008
>Not to mention its really fucking far away.
That's why I really like the idea of a probe.
Realistically, we'll find nothing. It's a frozen rock.
>Places like Enceladus and Europa are the next big places to explore.
And Titan, don't forget Titan!

[Anonymous No.11609380]

>>11608972
They will probably go there but it will take time.
First they need an orbiter to characterise more of the surface and prepare for a lander. You need to understand the landscape in order to find the right mode of mobility.

Since you want to stop at the planet you need a long time decelerating which means longer journey time. Just a flyby takes 9 years. To stop you need more propellants and probably 10+ years. And from orbiter to lander would be perhaps 10 years planning.

[Anonymous No.11610391]

>>11607061
Open Luna has some batshit crazy plans for getting people to the moon. Pic related is their lander, a fucking door frame full of explosives.
http://openluna.org/missions

[Anonymous No.11610543]

>>11610391
>open source space exploration
muh dick

[Anonymous No.11612062]

>>11609032
>And Titan, don't forget Titan!
Titan is probably the most likely target for big scale operations. It has vast lakes of fuel, more than we have oxygen on Earth to burn with. Surface gravity is, well, just right. And the hydrocarbon is useful for rocket fuel, also as the medium for nuclear propulsion.

[Anonymous No.11612427]

>>11608582
Robots are shit. Humans could do every single bit of science that almost 50 years of landers and rovers have ever done on Mars in a matter of weeks and for a competitive cost.
The problem is that manned missions have a large upfront cost in terms of both money and manhours and governments are fickle. Smaller, faster missions are more likely to be compeleted. A planned manned mission might have spent enough to send a rover by the time its canceled, and at least the rover achieved something for the money but that doesn't mean the manned mission wouldn't have been more cost effective had it actually been completed.

[Anonymous No.11612587]

>>11606926

[Anonymous No.11612590]

>>11612587

[Anonymous No.11612596]

>>11612590

[Anonymous No.11613731]

>>11606926

[Anonymous No.11614017]

>>11606926
A sad one.